DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/9/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 7 is indefinite because it recites “The composition of claim 6” but claim 6 has been canceled. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted to depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 10-13, 15-16, 18-26, and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ledwith et al. (US 2018/0237661).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 13:
Ledwith discloses an anaerobically curable composition comprising (a) a solid resin component and (b) a solid anaerobically curable monomer, and a curing component [abstract; 0001; 0021-0025]. The composition further comprises a liquid anaerobically curable monomer [0034]. Ledwith discloses (meth)acrylate components, including those according to the same formula as claimed [0122-0123]. Ledwith teaches cure accelerators, such as acetylphenylhydrazine, DE-p-T, etc. [0090]. The resin has a melting point of 50-80°C [0062]. Suitable resins include polyurethanes having a molecular weight of 2,000 g/mol or more [0080].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the molecular weight of the polyurethane, including over amounts within the claimed range, to provide a curable composition in accordance with Ledwith’s disclosure, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Ledwith teaches the use of 40-90% by weight of an anaerobically curable monomer relative to the total weight of the composition [0081]. Ledwith teaches less than 50% by weight of the liquid curable component relative to the overall anaerobically curable monomer [0085]. These amounts provide calculated values that suggest the amounts of solid and liquid anaerobically curable monomers overlap the presently claimed amounts relative to the overall composition. For example, when the liquid curable component is 10% of the anaerobically curable monomer and the total anaerobically curable monomer is 40% of the overall composition, the liquid curable component is 4% of the overall composition and the solid curable component is 36% of the overall composition. As another example, when the liquid curable component is 20% of the anaerobically curable monomer and the total anaerobically curable monomer is 50% of the overall composition, the liquid curable component is 10% of the overall composition and the solid curable component is 40% of the overall composition. As another example, when the liquid curable component is 40% of the anaerobically curable monomer and the total anaerobically curable monomer is 70% of the overall composition, the liquid curable component is 28% of the overall composition and the solid curable component is 42% of the overall composition.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of the liquid curable component and the solid curable component, including over amounts within the claimed ranges, to provide a curable composition in accordance with Ledwith’s disclosure, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Additionally, Ledwith teaches the use of 10-60% by weight of resin (i.e., polyurethane resin), preferably 25-50% by weight [0079].
Regarding claim 5:
Ledwith teaches 0.1-10% by weight of curing component [0089].
Regarding claims 10-12:
Ledwith teaches free radical initiators, such as benzoyl peroxide, etc., which may be encapsulated [0147-0150].
Regarding claim 15:
Ledwith teaches a tape, filament, etc. [0047; 0097].
Regarding claims 16 and 18-26:
Ledwith teaches applying the composition to the threads of a threaded article to be thread locked and curing the composition [0103-0114]. The composition can be in the form of a tape, filament, etc. [0047; 0097].
Regarding claims 28-29:
As discussed above, Ledwith discloses amounts of each component that overlaps with the presently claimed ranges. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of each component, including over amounts within the claimed ranges, to provide a curable composition in accordance with Ledwith’s disclosure, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ledwith et al. (US 2018/0237661) in view of Chu et al. (US 6,750,309) or Birkett et al. (WO 2019/072686).
Regarding claim 14:
Ledwith discloses curable compositions as previously explained.
Ledwith with silent with regard to a cure accelerator as presently claimed.
Such materials were known in the art to have utility. For example, Chu discloses curable (meth)acrylated urethane copolymer compositions (abstract; 2:3+). The compositions are photolytic and/or anaerobically curable (15:21+). Chu teaches the use of metallocenes as photoinitiators for curing the compositions (15:26+).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use known initiators, including metallocenes as taught by Chu, to provide additional curing properties to the composition.
Alternatively, Birkett discloses cure accelerators for anaerobic curable compositions [abstract; 0001]. The accelerators have the same structure as the presently claimed structure and can be useful for curing (meth)acrylate components [0015-0016].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use known accelerators, including those taught by Birkett, to provide additional curing properties to the composition.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ledwith et al. (US 2018/0237661) in view of Kadam et al. (WO 2013/010497).
Regarding claim 17:
Ledwith discloses curable compositions as previously explained. Ledwith teaches the composition can be provided in the form of a tape or gasket [0046-0047; 0097].
Ledwith is silent with regard to a release liner.
Such components were known in the art to provide utility. For example, Kadam discloses a gasket comprising anaerobic adhesive layers (abstract; 1:4; 3:15+; 9:4+). Kadam teaches the use of releasing layers on top of the adhesive layers to protect them from being scratched and keep the composition of the adhesive layers (10:1+).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use releasing layers on curable composition in the form of a tape to provide further protection to the curable tape.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ledwith et al. (US 2018/0237661) in view of Douek et al. (US 4,039,705).
Regarding claim 27:
Ledwith discloses curable compositions as previously explained. Ledwith teaches the composition can be provided in the form of a tape [0046-0047; 0097]. The composition comprises low amounts of solvent [0092].
Ledwith is silent with regard to mixing the polyurethane with solvent and subsequently mixing with the other curable components, followed by applying the mixture to a release liner and evaporating the solvent.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the reference allows for small amounts of solvent, which would improve mixing of components and homogenization of the composition. Additionally, Douek teaches it was known in the art to apply a solvent-containing composition to a release liner followed by evaporation of the solvent to form an adhesive tape (abstract; 1:58+; 10:1+).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use small amounts of solvent to further improve mixing, including by first mixing the polyurethane resin with such solvent followed by mixing the other curable components, and further apply such mixture to a release liner and evaporating the solvent to provide a tape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner previously addressed Applicant’s arguments in the Advisory Action mailed 1/16/2026. No further arguments were presented with the filing of the RCE. The examiner’s prior response is duplicated below for convenience. Additionally, the rejections based on Ledwith has been modified to provide further example calculations demonstrating that the reference’s disclosure of a combination of liquid and solid anaerobically curable monomers, wherein the liquid form is less than 50% by weight of these monomers, and that this combination of monomers is 40-90% by weight of the overall composition provides values that overlap with the presently claimed amounts of these components.
The Advisory Action stated (with new paragraph numbering):
Applicant argues Ledwith provides a broad disclosure that does not describe the claimed composition that contains about 4-44% by weight of a liquid anaerobically curable component that is a liquid (meth)acrylate monomer component; about 5-45% by weight of a solid anaerobically curable component that is a solid (meth)acrylate monomer component; of about 20-75% by weight of a solid thermoplastic polyurethane resin; or surprising benefits described in the specification (p12-15).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While Ledwith provides a broader disclosure than the present claims, the reference does teach that a composition comprising the claimed components is within the scope of its invention. Ledwith teaches:
An anaerobically curable composition comprising (a) a solid resin component and (b) a solid anaerobically curable monomer, and a curing component [abstract; 0001; 0021-0025].
“It will be appreciated that not all components of the invention have to be solid. For example it is usual that the curing component is in liquid form. Also a composition of the invention may include an anaerobically curable monomer in liquid form.” [0034].
“Where a composition of the invention includes an anaerobically curable monomer, it may be present in an amount of from about 40 to about 90%...by weight based on the total weight of the composition.” [0081].
“In general where a composition of the invention includes an anaerobically curable monomer in liquid form this will be less than 50% (by weight based on the total weight of the composition) of the overall anaerobically curable monomer present. The major part will be anaerobically curable monomer in solid form.” [0085].
“Anaerobic curable compositions may have an anaerobically curable component based on a suitable (meth)acrylate component.” [0121].
Suitable resins include polyurethanes having a molecular weight of 2,000 g/mol or more [0080].
“Where a composition of the invention includes a resin component, the resin component may be present in an amount of from about 10 to about 60%, such as from about 25 to about 50%...by weight based on the total weight of the composition.”
Ledwith therefore teaches all of the features Applicant argues the reference does not disclose. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose the components that Ledwith teaches are suitable for its compositions in weight amounts Ledwith teaches are suitable, including those components and amounts within the scope of the claimed invention, to provide such compositions that are in accordance with the reference’s teaching.
Although Applicant argues the claimed amounts provide surprising benefits, Applicant only points to statements in the specification but does not point to any evidence that demonstrates the criticality of the claimed ranges. Therefore, the examiner maintains the prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Applicant argues the rejection relies on picking and choosing different parts of Ledwith and arbitrarily combining them to recreate the claimed invention without motivation (p15).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ledwith provides all of the claimed components and discloses weight amounts thereof that overlap with the claimed weight ranges. The reference intends for such components and weight amounts to be used with the practice of its invention, which provides the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to use these components.
Regarding the additionally cited references, Applicant reiterates that Ledwith fails to disclose the claimed features and the additional references fail to cure this deficiency (p16-20).
The examiner submits Ledwith meets the claimed requirements and therefore the secondary references are not required to cure the submitted deficiency.
For these reasons, the examiner maintains the rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights